25

II. ANALYSIS OF TWO LOW RELIEF SCULPTURES FROM LA VENTA

Robert F. Heizer

INTRODUCTION

Between 1938 and 1943, Matthew W. Stirling, then Chief of the Bureauof American Ethnology, directed a series of Smithsonian Institution-National Geographic Society expeditions to southeastern Mexico for thepurpose of archaeological reconnaissance and excavation. These explora-tions by Stirling, to whom goes a great deal of credit for having been thefirst to look for and find the archaeological sites which contained objectsof the Olmec art style, led to the discovery and publication of most of themajor sculptures presently known for the Olmec culture, whose center ofdevelopment lay in southern Veracruz and Tabasco (Stirling 1943a; Drucker,Heizer and Squier 1959; Coe 1965a, 1965b, 1965c; Drucker 1952).

Despite a number of studies which deal with Olmec ceramics and stonesculpture (Covartubias 1946a, 1946b, 1957; Westheim 1957:191-229; Mayas yOlmecas 1942; Drucker 1952; Coe 1965a, 1965b; Stirling 1943a, 1965; PiniaChan and Covarrubias 1964; T. Smith 1963), we are still a very long way fromhaving at hand anything in print which can be called adequate as a stylisticanalysis of the genre. Many individual pieces of sculpture are well knownsince they have been published scores of times, but even these familiarexamples are nowhere described in detail, and ordinarily one sees the sameview presented time and time again. (For bibliographies of published workson Olmec archaeology see Jones 1963; Heizer and Smith 1965.) It is asthough the Olmec art style, once discovered by archaeologists, has becomethe almost exclusive property of the art historians, or the sole concern ofthat large but ill-defined segment of the public which is interested inviewing or collecting primitive art (cf. Coe 1965c). Although Stirling,Covarrubias, Drucker, and Michael Coe have made attempts to define the Olmecart style and to propose some iconographic interpretations of the style -andthese efforts should not be deprecated- it is still a fact that all of thiswork has been based uplbsuperficial and incomplete records of the details ofthe sculptured designs on the pieces themselves. In order to arrive at ameaningful knowledge and understanding of the Olmec art style which is any-thing more than impressionistic, we must be in possession of detailedrecords of all features of every piece of sculpture. To accumulate thisinformation will require a lot of hard work, but the cost will not be exces-

sive, nor the amount of travel unduly great. Olmec stone sculptures, whetherthese be the small jade figurines and ornaments, the colossal heads, the hugetable-top altars, the stelae, the sculptured human figures, or the miscella-

26

neous monuments, are concentrated in the Museo Nacional de Antropologfain Mexico City and in the regional museums established under the aegis ofthe Instituto in Jalapa, Veracruz, and Villahermosa, Tabasco. That such de"tailed studies can be done is demonstrated through the successful one-month-long research trip of four students from the Anthropology Departmentat Berkeley, made with the aim of making a full record of the twelvecolossal heads of the Olmec culture. The monograph containing the detaileddescriptions and photographs of these remarkable monumental sculptures hasbeen completed and will be published in 1967 as Contribution No. 4 of theArchaeological Research Facility.

The Olmec stone sculptors worked with a variety of kinds of stone andwith a variety of techniques, and their productions ranged from exquisitelycarved and highly polished figurines and ornaments of green, gray, andmilky white jadeite, which weigh only a few ounces, all the way up to stonesculptures of monumental size, the largest of which approach forty tons.No parent or source from which the Olmecs of southeastern Mexico as earlyas 1100 to 1200 B.C. (Berger, Graham and Heizer 1967; Coe, Diehl and Stuiver1967) drew the inspiration for their distinctive art is known, or, if itexists, it is so different that it has not been recognized thus far as theprecursor of the Olmec style. Looking to the Chavin style as a source doesnot seem warranted to me,1 and suggestions that its origin may have to besearched for in transoceanic localities strike me as equally, if not more,improbable. It is best, in the absence of information bearing on the ques-tion of origin, to simply admit that we do not know the answer, and to beginto search harder in Mesoamerica rather than engage in Wore speculation.Perhaps antecedents of Olmec art will be recognizable when we are able tospeak with assurance about what Olmec art really is- this point being aextension of one made earlier.

We do not know why some Olmec art' is in part miniaturized, as with thebeautifully cut, polished, and often engraved jadeite figurines, celts, andplaques; and in part of such monumentality, as with the three La Ventastelae that vary from 5 to 26 tons in weight, the La Venta altars that rangefrom 4 to 37 tons, and the four La Venta colossal heads whose weights rangefrom 11 to 24 tons. On the time level of the La Venta site, namely at thebeginning of the first millennium B.C., there is no equally large, free-standing sculpture known for Mesoamerica. If I were to hazard some explana-tion for the existence of this monumentality of part of the Olmec sculpture,I would guess that the group that had the authority to cause the great stoneto be transported the half-hundred miles from their source to the La Ventasite, and sculptured into altars, heads, and stelae, simply decided that thewould carry out this work in a really big manner. All that would have been

1 See p. 40 for end notes.

27

required, according to this theory, would be a large labor force, sufficientlydeveloped transport technology, stone carvers skillful enough to design andshape the stones, and the determination on the part of the managerial group tohave this plan carried out. Stirling (1965:720) has touched on this question,and his remarks indicate that he also sees in the monumentality of Olmecsculpture a kind of self-generated spontaneous gigantism.

There are three multiton "stelae" from the La Venta site. Stela 1 is athick rectangular slab, sculptured on one face and depicting a "topless" womanstanding in a rectangular niche that may represent an open doorway (pl. 2).Stela 2 is a somewhat larger, naturally flattened stone slab that is nottrimmed on the surfaces or sides (pl. 1). One surface bears a low reliefsculpture of a standing, ornately costumed person, presumably a priest, whois flanked on the sides and above by a number of smaller staff- or club-carry-ing figures whose postures indicate that they are involved in some kind ofphysical activity, such as kneeling or walking. Stela 3 shares with Stela 1the feature of a well dressed stone block, and with Stela 2 the general sceneof the flat-footed, inactive or static pose of the central figures-which inthis instance number two- as well as the small sized individuals ranged besideand above them. Stelae 2 and 3 are therefore stylistically related.

The label "stela" has been employed here simply as a descriptive term,and continues its usage as first applied by Blom and La Farge (1926), andlater by Stirling (1943a). Nothing is implied here as to the existence of a"stela cult" of the type occurring among the Classic Maya (cf. Westheim 1965:165), and it seems most probable that the three La Venta stelae are nothingmore than two special kinds of sculptured stone monuments.2 La Venta Stela 1was probably set up vertically, but we cannot be certain of this. Stela 2and Stela 3 from La Venta were almost certainly set upright, as evidenced bythe unworked lower portion and base line upon which the principal figuresstand. Stirling (1965:723) discusses the probable origin and development ofthe Mesoamerican practice of sculpturing and erecting stelae, and includesin his survey of examples the La Venta stelae. I cannot agree with him inhis identification of Stelae 1, 2, and 3 from La Venta as true stelae, oreven proto-stelae, and am of the opinion that Stela 1 from La Venta is noth-ing more than a unique sculpture, and that Stelae 2 and 3 are two stylistic-ally closely related low relief sculptured stone slabs that portray ritualscenes and are monuments of a type thus far known in Olmec sites only fromLa Venta.3 I believe that the term "stela" should not be used in future whenreferring to Stelae 1, 2, and 3 from La Venta, and, as well, to the piecesnow known as Stelae A and D from Tres Zapotes. No alternative name is sug-gested since this should be done by whoever makes a general study of Olmecsculpture.

28

STELA 3

Stela 3 (p1. 1) from the La Venta site is a massive block of dark grayporphyritic basalt which was secured from the Tuxtla Mountains that lieabout fifty miles to the west (Williams and Heizer 1965:18, maps 2, 3). Itstands 14 feet high, 6.6 feet wide, and 3 feet thick, and weighs 26 metrictons. It was first seen by Stirling in 1940, lying face down just to thewest of the centerline of the La Venta site, and within the rectangularshaped basalt-column enclosed itcourt" or plaza which was clearly the areaof the site where the most important rituals were performed. Stirlingremoved the enclosing soil, and the earth below the sculptured face was dugaway so that the great slab could be supported on posts in order for it tobe photographed from below. The 1940 photographs (Stirling 1943a, p1. 35)were taken with a wide-angle lens from a distance of about six feet, and theperspective was severely distorted. Drucker (1952, fig. 50) published adrawing of the sculpture which was incomplete and inaccurate, since it wasbased on the 1940 photographs. The same deficiency holds for the otherwiseexcellent drawings of the stela published by Covarrubias (1946b, p1. 4;1957, fig. 27). In 1955, Drucker and I, with the aid of a D8 bulldozerloaned by the Pemex Company, were able to set the stone upright, and thispermitted undistorted photographs (Drucker, Heizer and Squier 1959, p1. 55)to be made, as well as providing for the first time the opportunity to studythe sculptured surface (p1. 1) with comfort and in detail. In our report onthe 1955 excavations, we were able to provide a reconstruction of the orig-inal scene (ibid., fig. 68), but further study has encouraged me to makesome changes and to present here (fig. 1) a revised version. This secondreconstruction is not alleged to be accurate or authentic, but merely aconjectural recreation of the original sculpture.

The low-relief sculpture is incomplete due to exfoliation of portionsof the surface. While many of the stone sculptures at the La Venta sitehave been deliberately mutilated, it is my opinion that the imperfections ofStela 3 are not due to the hand of man but to natural weathering. After theLa Venta site had been abandoned by its builders, succeeding groups of occu-pants farmed the soils of the area. Large monuments that protruded from thesurface offered convenient spots on which to pile cut trees and shrubs thatwere to be burned after they had dried out. The occasional and repeatedheating and cooling of the stone monuments over a period as long as 2500 to3000 years would seem to have been the major cause of the splitting off ofpieces of the large stone sculptures. This is clearly evidenced along theupper left edge of Stela 3, where the absence of any tool marks along theedges of the major breaks is a good indication that the fractures are thermalrather than manual.

What is the meaning of the composition that is portrayed? Two elabo-

29

rately costumed, life-sized individuals face each other and are presumablyengaged in some kind of parley. (Hereafter the individual on the left willbe referred to as L; the individual on the right, as R.) Whether this is apeaceful meeting of two local priests or political leaders, or a confronta-tion between two enemy leaders, we cannot say. Both are equipped withunusually complicated examples of headgear of a kind that would be ill-suitedto wearing in hand-to-hand combat, so we may assume that the men are leadersor priests who have dressed themselves for a pacific encounter. Scenes ofwar are not typical of Olmec art, and while "war clubs" are at times depicted(Coe 1965b, fig. 49), we cannot really be certain that these flat, pointed,or angled-end instruments were weapons, or, alternatively, whether they mayhave been staffs symbolizing authority. (What are apparently warriors armedwith long spears, shown on Monument C from Tres Zapotes, may date from alater period than La Venta [ibid., 773].) Individual L in Stela 3 holds inhis right hand a thin, flat, squared-end piece that has been called a club,but which could with equal plausibility be interpreted as an agriculturaltool or a scepter or staff symbolic of special office.

That the two central figures, R and L, are merely elaborately dressedpersonages seems obvious. Their faces, or as much of them as we can nowdiscern, are those of ordinary men. Each stands five feet, seven inchestall, and each is dressed in a different manner. Person L wears a waist-to-mid-thigh skirt or kilt4 that is supported by a wide belt with an elaboratebuckle. His bare chest is adorned with an elaborate pectoral, perhaps ofcarved jade, hung from an upper piece bearing pendant beads. Whether thispectoral is suspended from a collar or is strapped to the chest cannot bedetermined. His upper arms each bear a flexible band that holds down arectangular ornament. L wears a cape with a flared lower edge, and what areapparently closely fitted leather shoes whose tops come to just above theankles. The cape appears to be a double one, with each layer of unequallength. The face of individual L cannot be seen, and all we can detect ispart of the right ear, which seems to be delineated as though it were fullyexposed and without ornamentation. There is no hint or suggestion that Lwas bearded.

Figure R wears a somewhat shorter but no less elaborate headdress,which is held in place by vertical guides running down the cheek and attachedat the bottom to a fitted chin strap, in front of which is affixed a pointedbeard. This beard may be natural, with the chin strap running underneath it,but more probably it is an artificial beard. A circular depression marks anexpanded ear lobe opening for an ear spool, and this hole seems to be cutthrough the flat piece which drops from the rear part of the base of theheadgear and then bends to curve across the top of the chest to provide sup-port for the headdress. Attached to this lower brace is a human trophy skullwhich rests on the upper chest. The perspective here is that of a profile of

30

the headgear, face, and supporting features projected against the full-frontview of the torso and profile view of the legs. This posture is classifiedas category I-Al by Proskouriakoff (1950:19, fig. 7), and in her study ofClassic Maya sculpture (ibid.) is said to be "typical of the earliest [Maya]monuments." There are not known at present any Maya sculptures of this kindthat can be dated with confidence as equivalent in age to Stela 3 from LaVenta, which may be as old as 1100 B.C. or as young as 800 B.C.

The six small human figures which occur on Stela 3 have been termed byKubler (1962:68) as "chubby were-jaguars [which] float above," and by Coe(1965b:752, 773) as "sky gods" or "rain gods" who are "shown flying throughthe air carrying weapons," engaged in what may be a "war in heaven." I amdoubtful of this interpretation, and prefer to view these smaller sizedpersons merely as earthbound individuals of lesser rank who are the attend-ants of the two principal persons (L and R) who dominate the composition.The poor preservation of the dress of R and the face of L makes nothingmore than a guess the suggestion that individual L is the representative ofa non-ear ornamenting, leather shoe-clad group, and that individual R istypical of a different societal unit recognizable by the wearing of a roundbead attached to the nasal septum, a false beard, a large ear spool, andlack of footgear. Person R may possibly be connected with water, since hisheaddress prominently displays a fish, and above him, lying horizontally ontheir backs and facing up, are two probable aquatic saurians that look likealligators, one of which has the rattles of a rattlesnake at the end of histail. There are two possible interpretations of these double (man plussaurian) figures. They may either represent an animal shown to indicatethat the person was affiliated with it, or they may be figures (actual ormodels) which are carried on the backs of the persons. I cannot choosebetween the two possibilities, but think that the second is more probablythe case. I do not press the interpretation that R and L are from differentethnic groups. They may simply be two Olmec priests, both from La Venta, orone from La Venta and the other from one of the other Olmec religious centerssuch as San Lorenzo.

It can be suggested (but not proved) that R is an Olmec and L an out-sider. Person R stands before the inverted U "arch" that is so character-istic a feature of Olmec sculpture. It is probably intended to be themuzzle or upper jaw outline of a jaguar (Drucker 1952:200), and is oftenrepresented with a human figure emerging from the opening, as in Altars 2,4, and 5 at La Venta (Stirling 1943a, pls. 37, 38, 40). The fact that indi-vidual R stands immediately in front of this "arch" suggests that he is a LaVentan. While wearing of large ear spools and false beards is known to bean Olmec decorative feature, we cannot affirm that these were exclusive toOlmecs (cf. Vaillant 1931; Drucker 1952:196). It should be noted that tothe left of L's shoulder is a smaller kilted figure who matches L himself in

31

this article of dress, while most of the other smaller figures are wearingbreechclouts.

C. Cook de Leonard (1959:339) says that Stela 3 appears to representthe marriage of an Olmec woman (our L) and a foreigner (our R) with differ-ent features. The "man-tigers" float above and consecrate the union, whichmay be the establishment of the first Mesoamerican dynasty. Here I can onlysay that we differ on the gender of L, and that I fail to see any evidenceof this as a nuptial scene, or that the superior figures are engaged in be-stowing their benediction.

The interpretation suggested here is that two important people, who maybe either priests or chiefs, one (R) from La Venta and the other (L) from aneighboring region where dress is somewhat different, are meeting, thoughwhether in friendship or hostility we cannot say. I admit to having leanedheavily, perhaps unduly so, on my reconstruction and thus have emphasizeddifferences which cannot be demonstrated. The alternative is that we arelooking at a depiction of an event where two principal persons from La Ventaare engaged and that except for minor details they are dressed in a verysimilar way.

Careful layout and planning were clearly involved in this sculpturjBecause La Venta art is religious in its theme and intent (Heizer 1962, wemay assume that the sculptor was instructed in precisely what was wanted bythe priests in charge of the ritual center. The spatial limitations imposedby the stone surface to be sculptured forced the stone carver to distributethe individuals accompanying R and L (whether soldiers, guards, acolytes,lesser priests, or something else) in the remaining open area. He madeefficient use of the available space, since he was able to represent sixindividuals and two animals there. There is a rather greater impression ofmovement or bodily activity in the six smaller figures than in the two largerindividuals, R and L. This impression is caused in part by the fact that thepositions of the smaller individuals are rotated variably through a ninetydegree arc from the vertical in order to occupy the available space. Theirknees (or at least those knees we can see) are more bent than those of indi-viduals L and R., so they may be engaged in dancing or walking. It is sug-gested that rather than "flying" or "floating," or being engaged in a war,heavenly or terrestrial, they are simply turbaned attendants of one or theother major person (L and R) who has come to the meeting, and that they areplaced in the background (i.e. behind) the principals. The sculptor mayhave attempted to depict in this single scene a series of quite specificideas. Note, for example, that above and to the right of individual R thereis a "club"-carrying, monster-visaged figure who is strongly reminiscent ofsimilar figures on Stela 2, and that he is, so far as we can tell, unique inthe group. Is he the spiritual protector of individual R? Directly over

32

the top of the headgear of R are two pairs of closely associated figures,each couple comprising an ordinary human behind whom is an animal having,as already suggested, mainly saurian features. One may suppose that thesetwo men are saurian-connected priests and that their presence at the cere-mony is intentional and meaningful. The left hand held flat on the chestappears at least twice, and the semi-extended right arm is present threetimes. While we may assume that the extended right arm and hand is point-ing to something, it seems to me more probable that the position of the twoarms may be intended to represent a formal gesture, such as a body posturewhile dancing, a pose adopted while attending a meeting of important hier-archical persons, a gesture of greeting, or any other of a number of guesses,all without foundation. The iconography of La Venta sculpture remains purelya matter of speculation, in my opinion. Coe (1965b), Cook de Leonard (1959),Schaefer (1948), Stirling (1943a, 1965), and I, to some extent here, havesuggested various interpretations.

STELA 2

Stela 2 from La Venta was first described in detail by Stirling (1943a:50-51), but had been seen and named earlier by Blom and La Farge (1926:I:85).It is a low relief sculpture applied to one face of a large, irregularlyflattened face of an untrimmed slab of petrographically distinctive b/salt(Williams and Heizer 1965:18) whose source, like that of Stela 3, was theCerro Cintepec in the Tuxtla Mountains. It is 12 feet high, 6.75 feet wide,and 18 inches thick. Its weight is calculated at 10.5 metric tons.

In 1955 our attempts to secure detailed photographs were unsuccessful,partly because of the position in which Stela 2 then lay, and partly becausemuch of the carving has been worn and rounded to the extent that detail hasbeen lost. The photograph which appears here (pl. 2) was taken in 1963 byMiss Tillie Smith. There is no evidence of deliberate defacement by batter-ing or smashing on the piece; the worn condition appears to be natural. Theone area which may have been deliberately erased is the face of the individualin the upper left. The face area is worn so smooth that it contrasts notice-ably with the well-preserved relief above and below this area. I believe thatDrucker's sketch (1952, fig. 49) is the most complete version that we can hopeto get, although it contains some errors which I have attempted to correct inthe sketch shown in Figure 2. (For other illustrations see Covarrubias 1946b,pl. 3; 1957, fig. 28; Pellicer 1961, fig. D; Stirling 1940a:321; 1943a, pl.34; 1943b:324.) The sculpture now stands in the Parque La Venta at Villa-hermosa, Tab., exposed to the weather, and in noticeably more worn conditionthan when first fully uncovered by Stirling twenty-five years ago. It ispartly because of the damage and progressive deterioration to which most ofthe La Venta monuments are subject (despite the sincere efforts of the INAH

33

caretakers at the Parque) that I believe it is important for detailed recordsof the sculptures to be made while this is still possible. The original sur-faces of all of the La Venta stone sculptures have been somewhat "softened"after 3000 years of contact with the highly acid soils, and this alteredsurface is subject to wearing away if it is exposed to the rain and sun.Lichen now covers most of the surfaces, and the monuments are also subject tovandalism by unappreciative visitors. It would be far better to protect thesein some enclosed, or at least roofed, housing. Such care is surely warrantedin view of the fact that these are among the most ancient of all known pre-historic Mexican sculptures and are therefore infinitely precious since theirnumbers are finite.

There is a strong similarity between the scenes depicted on Stela 2 andStela 3. We are immediately aware of the life-sized, highly costumed personwho occupies the central position. He stands in full-front view with bothfeet planted on a horizontal base line (now almost wholly removed by erosion).His headdress, held on with a chinstrap, is large and elaborate, as is true ofthe headdresses of persons R and L on Stela 3. On either side of the centralperson-who is probably a high priest (or chief or lord or king) -are rangedvertically three standing or kneeling smaller figures, whose counterpartsoccur in the six individuals attending R and L on Stela 3. The head personin Stela 2, like R and L in Stela 3, stands solidly, statically, and domin-ating, as though his mere presence is warrant enough for his predominance.

I quote here Stirling's (1943a:50-51) excellent description of Stela 2,adding my own corrections or additions in brackets.

This large stela represents a standing male figure inhalf relief. The lower part of the design is mutilated[eroded], but evidently the toes point outward. Diagon-ally across his chest the figure holds a staff, the handle[shaft] of which is grasped with both hands. From theupper end a tassel-like ornament hangs over the rightshoulder. Behind the shoulders and back is a circularobject, possibly a shield with ornaments hanging oneither side of the hips [this appears, rather, to be aback cape, not unlike the one worn by individual L onStela 3; I do not think that it is a shield: from itslower edge on each side hang three triangular elementswhich are apparently pendant ornaments]. Bands are wornaround the wrist and ankles. In the ears are circularear disks, and on the head is a remarkable tall andelaborate headdress, the extreme upper part of which ismutilated [eroded away]. The headdress seems to beheld in place by means of a chin strap.

34

In the spaces on either side of the central figure,carved in low relief, are six crouching, barefooted fig-ures, three on each side, one over the other. All sixappear to be brandishing axes or batons [staffs]. Eachof them wears a broad belt, circular ear ornaments, anda headdress fastened by means of a chinstrap. [Thesmaller figures often have on their backs a circularcape with a notched edge. The left hand smaller indi-viduals consistently display this circular cape behindtheir left arms and a multi-element tiered (or pleatedor ruffled?) pendant decoration below the bent elbowsof their right arms. This 'cape' and the pendant ele-ments may, of course, only be an ornament attached tothe lower rear edge of the headdress. Between thethighs of the smaller individuals can be seen a flat,apparently free-hanging piece which may be part of the'cape,' or a front plaque or sash such as that worn bythe central figure.] The three figures at the observ-ers left are better preserved than the ones on theright. Their faces are like anthropomorphic jaguarswith projecting fangs. All of these figures [includ-ing the uppermost one at the viewer's left, despite thedrawing in Drucker 1952, fig. 49] are looking to theright [their faces are shown only in right profile],the first group [left hand] looking backward over theirshoulders in order to do so. The face of the centralfigure, although somewhat worn, is 'La Venta' in type,and the expression is one of serene dignity. [Thecentral figure's beard seems to be a real set of chinwhiskers rather than a false beard of the kind at-tached to the chinstrap of individual R on Stela 3.]

Judging from the erosion of the stone, the monumenthad fallen in such a manner that the right side becameburied, leaving the left side exposed for a longerperiod....

It seems to have been carved from a naturally formedslab of stone, which had a smooth but irregular surface.Not much attempt was made to level off these irregular-ities, and the carved designs follow them over thesurface.

There are some interesting parallels and differences between the compo-sition and layout of Stela 2 and Stela 3. Whereas only two of the small

35

individuals on Stela 3 carry a staff, all six of those on Stela 2 holdthese instruments. The way in which the staff is grasped and its positiondiagonally across the chest and over the shoulder are the same in everyinstance on both stelae.5 The staff, therefore, appears to be a ritualobject which is held in a certain position, and this seems to support theproposition that some ritual performance is being portrayed. Why all sevenpersons on Stela 2 carry staffs and only three (individual L and the smallerfigures immediately over and above R's shoulder) do so on Stela 3 is some-thing for which I cannot suggest an explanation. Other duplications betweenStela 2 and Stela 3 include the back cape, the large and elaborate head-dresses of the principal individuals which fill a considerable space, andthe bod> postures and turbans of the smaller individuals. Note also thepresence on each stela of six small sized individuals. There is no readyanswer to the question of whether the presence of six lesser persons oneach stela is accidental (as though there was available space for this manyand no more) or deliberate (as though it was a manifestation of a sacrednumber, or that in the operating culture there were six attendants to thehead priest). One of the smaller figures on Stela 3, which has been suggestedas being the "spiritual protector" of individual R., and his counterpart onStela 2, may be the standing (or walking) smaller middle figure on the rightside, he being the only one not depicted in the bended knee posture.

We can conclude that the similarities of the scenes and ways of repre-senting persons are so abundant that the two sculptures must depict essentiallythe same kind of event, or affirm the same kind of interpersonal relationshipbetween the larger central figure (or figures) and the smaller individuals whosurround him. Whether the depiction was intended to memorialize a specificperson (or persons) on some particular occasion, such as accession to office,or as a tribute to his memory after his death, we cannot guess. C. Cook deLeonard's theory that Stela 2 represents a marriage is possible (notwithstand-ing my declining to accept this), and so are any number of other suggestions.We would have to know a great deal more about Olmec culture and sculpture thanwe do now to make any such proposals more than conjecture.

That careful consideration was given by the sculptor to utilizing avail-able space on the stone seems obvious. The scene on Stela 3 is a busy one,but there are enough blank areas to allow each of the eight human figures, as

well as the two "saurians, to be distinguished without difficulty. The posi-tion and size of the six humans above individuals R and L can probably beaccounted for by invoking two familiar principles of ancient art. The firstis the depiction of individuals of lesser social rank in smaller size, not

because they were actually smaller but because they were less important. Thispractice is well known in Egyptian (W. Smith 1958:17; Janson and Janson 1957,pl. 32), Assyrian (Contenau 1954:133, 236), and Maya (Lothrop, Foshag andMahler 1957:26) art. The second of these is the device of representing objec

36

in the background in the upper part of the composition. This, as Lothrop(1952:51) pointed out when defining the perspective on the gold disks fromthe cenote at Chichen Itza, is not our "linear" or "aerial" perspective,but is "comparable to the isometric projections or geometric elevationstraditional in our architectural drawing today." A similar technique isemployed in Egyptian (Read 1917:147-148) and Assyrian (Contenau 1954:236;Parrot 1961:14) sculpture. Kubler (1962:37, 203, pl. 6, fig. 70) discussesand illustrates this kind of attempt to achieve depth of pictorial space inwall paintings at Teotihuacan and Chichen Itza. It is this same contrivancethat seems to have been employed in the scene portrayed on Stela 3 from LaVjznta. That the smaller and higher figures were placed behind the largertower ones seems clearly indicated by the left hand of the figure just tothe left of the top of the headdress of individual L.

On low relief sculptures from La Venta there was a tendency to plan thedesign layout to accommodate to the natural shape of the stone. This isclearly apparent in Monument 19 from La Venta (Drucker, Heizer and Squier1959, fig. 55), and can be seen on other examples, including, in my opinion,Stela 2.

Another matter concerns perspective, or what Coe (1965b:749) callsutilization of "space to give three-dimensional depth to bas reliefs" (cf.-Westheim 1965:168). This was accomplished, he believes, by "establishing atension between forms." I confess that I do not know what Coe means by this,nor can I see it in Olmec art as illustrated by Stela 2 and Stela 3. Bothof these sculptures seem to me to be fairly simple, straightforward, anduntense portrayals, although it is true that the flatness or static qualityof individuals R and L on Stela 3, and of the central figure on Stela 2,contrasts with the impression of movement and activity of the six smallerfigures that are present in each composition. A composition has tension"'in it; if it did not it would be infinite in its dimensions. If Coe sees astension the spacing of the figures, or the bodily activity and postures ofthe individuals shown on Stela 2 and Stela 3, then that can best be left (asno doubt much of what I have written here) as an impression of what he sees.

A dramatic moment in some historic event or episode may be the originalinspiration for the scene shown on Stela 3, and I would prefer to character-ize the composition as analagous to a still photograph, where the personspresent are shown in action at the instant the film is exposed.

Figures 4 and 5 attempt to indicate that there are two dynamic factorsor "forces" involved in the composition of Stela 3. One of these is "cen-tripetal" and this brings the viewer's attention to the focal center at themidpoint of a line drawn between the eyes of the central figures, R and L, byfollowing the line-of-sight of the six smaller individuals (fig. 4). The

37

other dynamic force is "centrifugal" or "radial," and this is effected byplacing the legs and feet of the eight figures at, or aimed at, the outerboundary of the stone (fig. 5). The vertical rising sides of Stela 3 helpto force the movement upward to the point where it is released and radiatedout via the legs of the upper figures. The curved top of Stela 3 reinforcesthis radial tendency, and it is probably not wholly accidental that the stelatakes this form rather than the more typical angularity of most La Venta mon-uments. I prefer to see Stela 3 as a dynamic whole, successful as a resultof carefully contrived line and use of space, rather than impressive throughthe creation of "tension between forms."

Stela 2 is similar but not identical. Figure 6 is an effort to showthat the "centrifugal" or "radial" force is present, but is effected not somuch by the outward pointing of the legs and feet of the figures as by theangle at which the staffs are held by each individual. If the eye picks upone of these, it is carried right out to the edge of, or beyond, the sculp-ture, and the total effect of seven such lines is such as to make this im-pression of centrifugality a most positive one.

Another difference between Stela 3 and Stela 2 is to be seen in thevertical (or near-vertical) or "gravitational" main orientation6 of thebodies of all seven individuals (shown in fig. 7). The body axes in Stela2 point down like plumb-bob lines. A distinctive feature of the line-of-sight of the six smaller individuals on Stela 2 (the large central figureis "neutral" in his forward gaze) is that everyone is looking to the left,even though this required swiveling the heads of the three figures on theleft so that they look over their shoulders. Whether the intent is to showa convention of ritual posture which demanded that attendants of lesser rankavert their gaze and present only their profiles when in the company of thehigh priest, we do not know. If this explanation does account for the uni-formity of the line-of-sight of the six small figures on Stela 2, it mayhave been done because it was more important to indicate this gesture in apermanent record than to orient to the focal center the lines-of-sight ofall persons present, as portrayed on Stela 3 for aesthetic reasons. Pursu-ing this line of reasoning, one could suggest that a different ritual isbeing depicted on each stela- one of these (as on Stela 3) requiring theaverted glance, and the other (as on Stela 2) not demanding it. What hasearlier been suggested as a ritual posture in Stela 3, expressed by onearm (either right or left) held to the chest and the other partially ex-tended (see fig. 5), may have been the significant gesture required for therite being portrayed in that composition. The way in which the six smallerfigures on Stela 2 grasp the staffs can also be taken as a fixed, patterned,ritualized method of holding these objects. The unusual bended-knee positionof five of the small figures on Stela 2 may be still another ritual posture.

38

DISCUSSION

Olmec sculpture, except for certain standardized forms such as onegroup of the massive table-top "altars" and the colossal heads, can becharacterized as unpatterned, in the sense that most of it consists ofindividual works. The tendency to formal patterning that one sees inClassic Maya stela sculpture (cf. Proskouriakoff 1950:180; Thompson 1950:18-19) is not typical of Olmec large sculpture (with the exceptions notedabove), and one senses that the art form had not arrived at a fixed, stable,formally patterned "dogmatic" stage. It is partly because Stela 2 and Stela3 from La Venta are so different that one may suppose in each instance thatsome quite particular event or situation involving actual persons was beingdepicted. At the same time, the two scenes show so many similarities thatone may also suggest that the same sculptor carved both blocks of stone.

The idea of a master sculptor- a man with apprentices to aid him in theactual work- who, in the period of his greatest productions was responsiblefor executing Stela 2 and Stela 3 does not seem to me farfetched or implaus-ible. When we consider that the stones for Stela 2 and Stela 3, now weigh-ing respectively 26 and 10 tons at a minimum (and rather more before beingsculptured), had to be transported from the Tuxtla region, we realize thatthis must have involved a large number of men and substantial transport aids(i.e. sledges and bridged canoe-barges). Large scale transport of this sortin all probability could only have been done with organization and direction(cf. Heizer 1966), and the considerable number of multiton sculptures at LaVenta shows that this site was a focal point for receiving imported stones,and for engraving and placing them in the ceremonial precinct when they werecompleted. We have at La Venta a sculpture center, and it is not surprisingto find that there is evidence of great virtuosity in many of the monuments.The duplication of certain kinds of sculpture (e.g. colossal heads, of whichthere are four; table-top altars, of which there are six; cross-leggedseated humans, of which there are at least four; "stelae," of which thereare two; and a score or more of large individualized pieces) may be an indi-cation that there were several "schools" or "workshops," each with its masterand pupils, at the site. Attractive as this suggestion is in providing anexplanation for the duplication of some forms of sculpture, we cannot pressit too far. We do not know how long a time span is represented by the total-ity of monumental sculpture, and therefore cannot choose between the alterna-tives of (1), a number of sculpture workshops existing and producing concur-rently; and (2), a succession over time of different kinds of sculpture whichwere in vogue for a time and were then replaced by another form.7 Eventhough we are unable to choose between two such alternatives (among a largernumber that could be suggested), we need to think about such possibilities,for it is by finally being able to reach decisions on such options that wewill understand what was going on at the site. In the larger reference frame

39

of Olmec culture, we need to understand why there is such a concentrationof stone sculpture at the La Venta site; why there are four colossal headsat La Venta, six at San Lorenzo, and one each at Tres Zapotes and Nestepe;why table-top altars with human figures seated in the niche or portal onthe face are abundant at La Venta and rare at San Lorenzo, etc., etc. WasLa Venta, unique among known Olmec sites in its size, layout, huge pyramid,mosaic "masks," buried pavements, and wealth of jade offerings, amongother things, also a religious capital? Was it a kind of first millenniumB.C. Vatican, where the high priests of the larger society resided, wherethe most important of the nation's rituals were performed, where the reli-gious wealth was concentrated in buried offerings-making it thus thenational treasury-and where was maintained, through the bounty of peasanttithes, a large priesthood, corps of technologists, an4..ublic-supportedsculpture workshops? We do not know the answers to any of these questions,but the mere existence of the material wealth at the La Venta site requiresthat they be asked.

Coe (1965c:122; 1967:128) has questioned my proposition (Heizer 1960;1961; 1963) that the Olmec society was theocratically organized, and appearsto be inclined to the alternative interpretation that the society's leadersmay not have been priests but "secular lords who drew their power fromlineage and from conquest." In fairness to Coe, it should be admitted thatsome propositions made by me in this connection have had to be amended as

quite unproven (Drucker and Heizer 1965), but none of these recantingsconcern the earlier or present interpretations of the identification of theprincipal persons on Stela 2 and Stela 3 as ritual leaders of high authority,or the probability that there is depicted on these monuments scenes that are

heavily loaded with ceremony and ritual. Whether we call the La Ventaleaders "priests," "kings," "secular lords," "priest-kings," or whatever, isa matter of choice, and to me it still seems that the best interpretation ofthe available data is to view La Venta as a ceremonial center, a place whereimportant organized ritual was performed, and where the head people were

religious leaders. I do not insist that I am correct in this view, and sayonly that we probably now control enough information for the southeastMexican Olmec area to permit some fairly sound conclusion to be reached inthis regard.

I have now come to the end of this brief examination of two of the-largesculptures from the La Venta site. What has been suggested will no doubt beconsidered as very amateurish by art historians, who, by their training andexperience, know the rules, principles, and terminology for such analyses.Thus far the art of La Venta has not been seriously studied by competent art

historians, and it is much to be hoped that while the sculptures are stillin sufficiently good condition to examine, this will be done. Proskouriakoff(1958:29) argues that "the critical study of art is not for the archaeologist

40

[to do]," and this is probably true. On the other hand, an art historianwho knows little or nothing of the extra-esthetic aspects of the culturewhose art he analyzes is scarcely in a position to provide conclusions thatwill be of very much assistance to the archaeologist. Apparently what weneed, in order for all parties to be satisfied, are either art historianswho are competently trained in archaeology, or archaeologists who are compe-tent in art criticism. The student who wishes to explore the possibilitiesof such a dual approach can begin by reading Spinden's A Study of Maya Art(1913); Proskouriakoff's A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture (1950) andStudies on Middle American Art (1958); Kroeber's Style and Civilizations(1957); Kubler's monumental Art and Architecture of Ancient America (1962),and his shorter papers (1958, 1961); and articles by Kelemen (1946) andRands (1958).

Notes

1. This does not deny the possibility that some similar stimulus whichproduced both Chavin and Olmec once existed (cf. Kubler 1962:70-71; Willey1962).

2. Knorozov (1967:3) is quite incorrect when he writes that there arestelae from La Venta which "show that the 'Olmec' had numerals, hieroglyphicwriting, a calendar, and year-reckoning from an initial era of the samecharacter as that of the Maya."

3. This is not to say that true stelae are absent from all Olmec sites.Stela C from Tres Zapotes (Stirling 1940b), while fragmentary, bears glyphsand is probably a true stela. Other pieces (e.g. those labeled Stela A andStela D) from Tres Zapotes seem more similar to the special kind of sculp-tured monument evidenced in Stela 2 and Stela 3 from La Venta.

4. Another possibility is that he wears a garment resembling shorts.What may be the same kind of article, which ends above the knee, can be seenin the left hand figures on Stela 2 (pl. 2).

5. It is interesting to note that an Early Classic Maya figure pose(Type I-Dl of Proskouriakoff 1950, fig. 8d) is very similar to that of thecentral figure on La Venta Stela 2.

6. This is similar to the "main volume axis" principle used by Loran(1950) in his analysis of Cezanne's paintings.

7. Proskouriakoff (1950:3, 5) can discuss Maya sculpture in terms ofa tradition which ran for at least ten centuries, and is therefore justified

41

in assuming that there existed the sculptor's profession. At La Venta wecannot do this because the site stands as only one point in the flow ofartistic expression, and we do not yet know the derivation, the period ofduration, or the destination of the La Venta art. Kubler (1962:71) writesthat "the [Olmec] colossal heads and the jades can have been carved onlyby professional sculptors relieved of all other work, and maintained bythe community."

List of Illustrations

Plate 1. Stela 3, La Venta. Photo by R. F. Heizer at La Venta, 1955(copyright National Geographic Society, negative 131280A).

Plate 2. Stela 2, La Venta. Photo taken by Tillie Smith at Parque LaVenta, Villahermosa, Tab., 1963.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Reconstruction of relief on Stela 3.

Reconstruction of relief on Stela 2.

Relief depicted in Plate 2 (Stela 3).

Stela 3. Internal focal center(0) via line-of-sight (->);centrifugal lines of main body orientation ( I).

Stela 3. Stick figures which take the viewer's eye outsidethe composition ("centrifugal or radial dynamic force") viathe legs of the eight figures.

Stela 2. Stick figures carrying staffs (in) which firstlead the viewer's eye out of the composition ("centrifugalforce") and then direct it to the internal focal point (0)along the base line.

Stela 2. Vertical or "gravitational" lines of body orienta-tion (-*) which orient the eye to the base line (---- );and, lines-of-sight (->) of the six smaller individuals.

42

Plate 1

43

Plate 2

44

Figure 1

45

Figure 2

46

Figure 3

Figure 4

l

47

Vi116-- a

48

Figure 5

49

Figure. 6

50

Figure 7

51

Bibliography

Berger, Rainer, J. A. Graham and R. F. Heizer1967 A Reconsideration of the Age of the La Venta Site. Contribu-

tions of the Univ. California Archaeol. Research Facility,3:1-24. Berkeley

Blom, F. F. and 0. La Farge1926 Tribes and Temples. Tulane Univ. Press., New Orleans. 2 vols.

Coe, Michael1965a Archaeological Synthesis of Southern Veracruz and Tabasco.

Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 3:2:679-715.

1965b The Olmec Style and Its Distribution. Handbook of MiddleAmerican Indians, Vol. 3:2:739-775.

1965c The Jaguar's Children: Pre-Classic Central Mexico. New YorkGraphic Society, Greenwich, Conn.

1967 Review of film Excavations at La Venta. Amer. Anthrop. 69:127-128.

Coe, M., R. A. Diehl and M. Stuiver1967 Olmec Civilization, Veracruz, Mexico: Dating of the San Lorenzo

Phase. Science 155:1399-1401.

Contenau, G.1954 Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria. St. Martin's Press,

New York.

Cook de Leonard, Carmen1959 La Escultura. In Esplendor 'del Mexico Antigua, Vol. II:519-606.

Mexico.

Covurrubias, Miguel1946a El arte "Olmeca" o de La Venta. Cuadernos Americanos, Aiio V,

28:4:153-179. Mexico.

1946b Mexico South: The Isthmus of Tehuantepec. A. Knopf, New York.

1957 Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. A. Knopf, New York.

Drucker, Philip1952 La Venta, Tabasco: a Study of Olmec Ceramics and Art.

Bureau of American Ethnology, Bull. 153.

Drucker, Philip and R. F. Heizer1965 Commentary on W. R. Coe and Robert Stuckenrath's Review of

Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955. Kroeber Anthrop.Soc. Papers 33:37-70. Berkeley.

52

Drucker,1959

Philip, R. F. Heizer and R. J. SquierExcavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955. Bureau of AmericanEthnology, Bull. 170.

Heizer, Robert F.1960 Agriculture and the Theocratic State in Lowland Southeastern

Mexico. Amer. Antiq. 26:215-222.

1961 Inferences on the Nature of Olmec Society Based Upon Data fromthe La Venta Site. Kroeber Anthrop. Society Papers 25:43-57.Berkeley.

1963 The Possible Sociopolitical Structure of the La Venta Olmecs.Akten des 34 Internationalen Amerikanistenkongresses, Wien,1960, 310-317.

1966 Ancient Heavy Transport, Methods and Achievements. Science153:821-830.

Heizer, Robert F. and T. Smith1965 Olmec Sculpture and Stone Working: a Bibliography. Contri-

butions of the Univ. California Archaeol. Research Facility,1:71-85. Berkeley.

Janson, H. W. and D. J. Janson1957 The Picture History of Painting: from Cave Painting to Modern

Times. Abrams, New York.

Jones, Julie1963 Bibliography for Olmec Sculpture. Primitive Art Bibliographies

No. 2. Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Kelemen, Pal1946 Pre-Columbian Art and Art History. Amer. Antiq. 11:145-154.

Knorozov, Y. V.1967 Selected Chapters from the Writing of the Maya. Peabody Museum,

Harvard University, Russian Translation Series Vol. 4.

Kroeber, Alfred L.1957 Style and Civilizations. Ithaca, N.Y.

53

Kubler, George1958 Discussion of Proskouriakoff's Paper. Pan American Union,

Social Science Monographs V, 38-39. Washington.

1961 Rival Approaches to American Antiquity. In Three Regions ofPrimitive Art, 62-75. Museum of Primitive Art, Lecture SeriesNo. 2. New York.

1962 The Art and Architecture of Ancient America. Penquin Books,Baltimore.

Loran, Erle1950 Cezanne's Composition. 2nd ed. Univ. California Press,

Berkeley.

Lothrop, S. K.1952 Metals from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itza, Yucatan.

Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Vol. X,No. 2. Cambridge.

Lothrop, S. K., W. F. Foshag and J. Mahler1957 Robert Woods Bliss Collection: Pre-Columbian Art. Phaidon

Publications, Inc., New York.

Mayas y Olmecas1942 Mayas y olmecas. Mesa Redonda de Antropologfa. Mexico.

Parrot, A.1961 Nineveh and Babylon. Thames and Hudson, London.

Pellicer, Carlos1961 The Tabasco Museums. Instituto Nacional de AntropologLa e

Historia, Mexico, D.F.

Pi'na Chan, Roman and L. Covarrubias1964 El pueblo del jaguar. Mexico.

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana1950 A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture.

Washington, Publication No. 593.Carnegie Institution of

1958 Studies on Middle American Art. Pan American Union, SocialScience Monographs V, 29-35. Washington.

54

Rands, R. L.1958 Discussion of Proskouriakoff's Paper. Pan American Union,

Social Science Monographs V, 36-38. Washington.

Read, F. W.1917 Boats or Fortified Villages? Bulletin de l'Institut Francais

d'archeologie Orientale, Vol. 13:145-151. Cairo.

Schaefer, Claude1948 Essai d'interpretation iconographique de la sculpture

monumentale de La Venta, Tabasco. Actes de 28th CongresInternationale des Americanistes, Paris, 1947, 563-564.

Smith, Tillie1963 The Main Themes of the "Olmec" Art Tradition. Kroeber Anthrop.

Society Papers 28:121-213. Berkeley.

Smith, W. S.1958 The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt. Penguin Books,

Baltimore.

Spinden, H. J.1913 A Study of Maya Art. Peabody Museum Memoirs, Vol. 5.

(Reprinted under title, Maya art and civilization, IndianHills, 1957.)

Stirling,1940a

Matthew W.Great Stone Faces of the Mexican Jungle. National GeographicMagazine 78:309-334.

1940b An Initial Series from Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico.National Geographic Society, Contributed Technical Papers,Mexican Archaeology Series Vol. 1, No. 1.

1943a Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico. Bureau of AmericanEthnology, Bull. 138.

1943b La Venta's Green Stone Tigers. National Geographic Magazine84:321-328.

1965 Monumental Sculpture of Southern Veracruz and Tabasco.Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 3:2:716-738.

Thompson,1950

J. E. S.Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Introduction. Carnegie Institutionof Washington, Publication No. 589.

55

Vaillant, George C.1931 A Bearded Mystery. Natural History 31:243-252.

Westheim, Paul1957 Ideas fundamentales del arte prehispanico en Mexico.

Fondo de Cultura Economica, Mexico.

1965 The Art of Ancient Mexico. Anchor Books, Doubleday, GardenCity, N.Y.

Willey, Gordon R.1962 The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre-Columbian

Civilizations. Amer. Anthrop. 64:1-14.

Williams, Howel and Robert F. Heizer1965 Sources of Rocks Used in Olmec Monuments. Contributions

Univ. California Archaeol. Research Facility, 1:1-39.Berkeley.